S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi, dismissing the petitioner application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act.
(2) Respondent No.1I was, a member of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. Petitioner used to purchase cloth from him on credit basis against the 'Beejhaks' (bills) at the time of each purchase. One of the terms mentioned on the 'Beejhaks' was 'Decision on the mutual disputes would be made by Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association or through Judge or Tribunals established by them (ie. the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association) as Arbitrators, which would be binding'. The dispute having arisen, the Arbitrators were appointed by the Association, who rendered their award. The petitioner contended that there was no valid arbitration agreement and no agreement to refer the dispute to Arbitrators.
(3) Before the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner conceded that he had received the 'Beejhaks' and there was a valid agreement of Arbitration between the parties. The only contention raised, was that there was no agreement of reference to the Arbitrators appointed by the Association. This question is concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P.C. Agarwal v. K.N. Khosla, : AIR1975Delhi54 . In that case, the contract note contained an arbitration clause, more or less of the same purport as 'Beejhaks' in the present case. The Division Bench held that the clause contained also a consent for reference to the Arbitrators as provided by the bye laws of Delhi Stock Exchange Association. The Court held that a fresh agreement was not necessary. The learned Addl. Judge, was right in relying on the decision of this court. No error of jurisdiction is disclosed in the impugned order.
(4) Revision petition is dismissed with costs.